MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038621780 · doi:10.1086/651507

Human Infection with a Triple‐Reassortant Swine Influenza A(H1N1) Virus Containing the Hemagglutinin and Neuraminidase Genes of Seasonal Influenza Virus

2010· article· en· W2038621780 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nathalie Bastien, Nick A. Antonishyn, Ken Brandt, Christine E. Wong, Khami Chokani, Niki Vegh, Greg B. Horsman, Shaun Tyler, Morag Graham, Frank Plummer, Paul N. Levett, Yan Li

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Infectious Diseases · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan Disease Control LaboratoryUniversity of ManitobaPrince Albert Grand CouncilPublic Health Agency of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReassortmentNeuraminidaseVirologyHemagglutinin (influenza)VirusBiologyH5N1 genetic structureInfluenza A virusPandemicOrthomyxoviridaeInfluenza A virus subtype H5N1MedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Infectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A reassortant influenza A(H1N1) virus of swine origin distinct from the pandemic H1N1 2009 strain was isolated from 3 patients, all of whom worked at the same large hog operation in Saskatchewan, Canada. The genomic composition of the isolates has not been previously reported, to our knowledge, and was the product of a genetic reassortment between seasonal H1N1 and triple-reassortant influenza virus that emerged in North American swine during the late 1990s. The neuraminidase and hemagglutinin genes of A/Saskatchewan/5350/2009, A/Saskatchewan/5351/2009, and A/Saskatchewan/5131/2009 were derived from human H1N1 virus and were closely related to those of A/Brisbane/59/2007.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.311 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations40
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Infectious DiseasesSame topicInfluenza Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207